backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by ebakke.. on Jan 8 at 12:32 PM

Oregon drivers getting at least 55 MPG may have to pay a driving tax

Everyone who drives a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle on the streets in the United States pays taxes that go towards keeping the roads around the country and within your local community in good condition. We pay these taxes at the pump when we buy fuel.
 
However, one of the side effects to the Obama administration's push to get Americans to buy more fuel-efficient electric or hybrid vehicles is that the amount of money raised in fuel taxes by states is decreasing. The Oregon state legislature is reportedly considering a bill that would require drivers of vehicles getting at least 55 mpg to pay a tax on each mile driven after 2015.
 
The bill would also give drivers the option of paying a flat tax amount annually. Currently, taxes on fuel within the state of Oregon are 30 cents per gallon.

“Everybody uses the road and if some pay and some don’t then that’s an unfair situation that’s got to be resolved,” said Jim Whitty, manager of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding.

Oregon isn't the only state considering charging drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles attacks on the miles they drive; Nevada and Washington are also looking at per mile charges. Drivers of electric vehicles in Washington will begin paying an annual fee in March.

Automotive manufacturers and dealers see this proposed per mile tax as a significant hindrance to the mass adoption of hybrid and fully-electric vehicles.

Sources: Statesman Journal, Southern California Public Radio



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Dolts
By acer905 on 1/4/2013 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 4
Personally, I am a proponent of the idea to eliminate every tax law in effect today and replace it with 25% tax on ANY and ALL purchases. No stupid income tax/returns, no tax credits, no ridiculous "inheritance" tax, no "Nexus Laws" limiting where you pay what tax. Just one simple tax. That way we can just kill off the IRS, and force the Gov to actually budget things.


RE: Dolts
By Motoman on 1/4/2013 1:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
In general I'm not opposed to vastly simplifying the tax codes...

...but I'll just point out that any true flat-tax system is terribly regressive. The less money you make, the more painful that flat tax is going to be.

Imagine you make $20,000 a year...and you spend that $20,000 every year. You paid $5,000 in taxes. That leaves you only $15,000 to get by on. Which is terrible.

If you make $100,000 a year, and spend it all, you spent $25,000 on taxes - leaving you $75,000 to get by on - which you can do very well with.

If you make $1,000,000 a year, you paid out $250,000, leaving you $750,000 to live the high life on. At which point you probably don't even care anymore.


RE: Dolts
By ebakke on 1/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: Dolts
By JediJeb on 1/4/2013 9:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But regardless of how painful it is for anyone, we should all have to bear the burden of government. If it's truly benefiting all of us, it should be paid for by all of us.


I agree completely. Why has it become acceptable that those who benefit less from the government pay more to be given to those who benefit more from the government? Everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes that is the only fair way to tax.

As said above, if someone makes and spends $20,000 they pay $5,000 in taxes leaving them only $15,000 makes it look bad compared to the guy making $2,000,000 and paying only $500,000 in taxes. But when you look at it the other way, one only paid $5,000 in taxes while the other paid 100X more taxes, that makes the person making less money look like he got a bargain.

Another way to think about it is that if the tax rate is flat, and you do away with all of the entitlements(not Social Security since each one has paid into that and receives back proportionally) this now places an incentive on everyone to work to better themselves to have more, not just sit and wait for handouts as so many do who could actually be working.


RE: Dolts
By Paj on 1/7/2013 8:56:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why has it become acceptable that those who benefit less from the government pay more to be given to those who benefit more from the government?


Everyone benefits from the government. Everyone benefits from having schools, ports, roads, police, fire services, power infrastructure, national building codes.

The opposite of these things is anarchy. If you love small government so much, move to Somalia - thats about as small as a government can get.


RE: Dolts
By ebakke on 1/7/2013 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you love small government so much, move to Somalia - thats about as small as a government can get.
And here I thought we were having a reasonable discussion between rational adults.


RE: Dolts
By maugrimtr on 1/8/2013 4:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worse, we think it's morally right to put a gun to Bill's head and force him to pay for some (or all) of Bob's portion.


It's an overgeneralizatin since it is actually morally right to help Bob...at least that's what I learned as a Christian. It's a question of scale not moral righteousness.


RE: Dolts
By ebakke on 1/8/2013 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
No it isn't an overgeneralization. What I described is exactly what's happening.

I have no problem with charity. But charity at the end of a gun isn't charity; it's theft. If you want to help Bob because your religion tells you to, great. If I want to help Bob because he's my pal, great. If Frank wants to help Bob because Frank's guilty about his own success in life, great. As long as each person is doing so voluntarily. But forcing someone else to help Bob isn't suddenly OK just because a majority of the people want it to happen.


RE: Dolts
By Ringold on 1/5/2013 1:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that any true flat-tax system is terribly regressive.


Not entirely true. The FairTax plan proposed by many distributes a monthly rebate for all sales tax on some minimum standard of living, such that the 'poor', or all people who decide to live modestly, effectively pay tax each day and then get it rebated monthly.. net taxes: zero.

There's been for years a vast propaganda campaign that tries to ignore or fillibuster people that attempt to point that out, but it's in there. I wouldn't be surprised if the distribution of taxes paid didn't change much, but it would have the positive effect of rewarding savings, which the current system we have penalizes heavily.


RE: Dolts
By Motoman on 1/5/2013 9:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
F%ck rebates.

If your intention is to tax poor people less, and rich people more, then just do that.

There is no purpose in the refund/rebate system other than to hope people fall through the cracks and don't get their share back. Just like mail-in rebates on retail goods.

Institute a simple, tiered tax rate system, and fire 99% of everyone who works for the IRS, since all you'd need to process taxes at that point is a couple old Amigas and a monkey who can type.


RE: Dolts
By JediJeb on 1/6/2013 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!

Our entire tax code should read like this.

"Every individual and corporate entity earning income owes 20% of said income payable at time of receipt of said income."

Wouldn't even take up one page to publish, and as written contains no loopholes. If you want to pay less taxes then make less money. If you want to make more money, you will know exactly how much more you will be paying in taxes. Do away with any pre-tax deductions from paychecks to make it even more simple and you would be able to get rid of most of the overhead in the IRS since you would need very few people to take care of it.



"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki